Mosely: Patriots Vs. 92' Cowboys

[ABQCOWBOY]

In 92, I believe the NFL was a better product. I believe this because at the time, you could have a team that went three deep at every position. You can't do that in this day and age. I have never really believed that the Pats were a dominating team offensively. Good, yes, but not great. I also think that it's stupid to compare last years team to our champoinship teams. If you want to compare the Pats 01, 03 or 04 teams, then that's fine but not the 07 team. They are not deserving. They may have gone 16-0 in the regular season but the line for 2nd best starts there at the door. You don't get to sit at the table unless it says championship after your name. 19-1, while very impressive, don't cut it in a discussion of champions.

This is what I would say about those teams.

2001
16-13 over Oakland in the Divisional Playoffs. The Brady Rule
24-17 over Pittsburgh in the Conference Championship.
20-17 over the Rams in the Super Bowl. AV won that game.

2003
17-14 over the Titans in the Divisional Playoffs.
24-14 over the Colts in the Conference Championship.
32-29 over Carolina in the Super Bowl. AV won that game again.

2004
20-3 over Indy. They dominated the Colts in the Divisional.
41-27 over Pittsburgh. They dominated the Steelers in the Conference.
24-21 over Philly. Anybody but Philly and they probably lose. Eagles are the consimate chock artist organization in professional sports. Any QB who can keep his lunch down probably beats them. Only TO showed up in that game. Even still, AV won it for them again.


1992
34-10 over Philly. We curshed them. Those were the Reggie White, Clyde Simmons, Jerome Brown teams. Divisional Game.
30-20 over San Fran. Probaby the 2nd best team in the league by a considerable margin. We beat them in SF convincingly. Conference Game.
52-17 over the Bills. HOF QB, RB and WR talent on that offense. Best Defense in the league IMO. We crushed them. Super Bowl.

1993
27-17 over GB. We owned possibly the greatest QB (statistically speaking) in the history of the game. Really was not close. Divisional Game.
38-21 over San Fran. Again, we dominated what was probably the 2nd best team in the league at the time. HOF QB, HOF WR, convincingly. Conference Championship.
30-13 over the Bills. Not as one sided but again, we dominated them. Was never really in doubt. Not even close. Super Bowl.

1995
30-11 over Philly. Again, we owned one of the truely great defenses in the history of the NFL. Our OL dominated them. Divisional Game.
38-17 over Packers. Broken record stuff but again, we simply dictated to Brett Favre and that Green Bay offense. Conference Game.
27-17 over Pittsburgh. Closest game we played in playoffs or Championship throughout our run. Having said that, it was still never really close or even in doubt. We never trailed in that game. Heck, two of the 4 quarters of that football game, we held the Steelers scoreless. It is only considered close because we were so dominant in all of our previous victories. It was never really close. Super Bowl.

Compare the two championship runs and you see that the Cowboys were truely dominant. Where as, the Pats, while great, needed Vini to win every one of there championships. Without that kicker, they probably never make this discussion.

The truth is the truth in that regard.

I have said this many times. I have seen great teams. I have seen teams that might even be better, in certain phases of the game, then our great teams of the early 90s. Having said that, I have never seen a unit more dominating then our OL of those years. They simply could impose there will on any opposing unit. I have never seen any defense that could stand against them. I consider the Philly Defense of that same period to be the best defensive line I've ever seen. They were owned. As great as Seymour and Wilfork might be, they are not even in the same league with The great Reggie White, Simmons or Brown.

The San Francisco Offense of that same period were light years better then any offense New England has ever fielded in the history of there organization. Brady is a great QB but it just doesn't compare. Young (HOF), Rice (perhaps the greatest WR of all time), Brent Jones (Probably future HOF TE), Ricky Watters, Tom Rathman, John Taylor? San Francisco was by far, a better team IMO, then New England. I give New England there due but IMO, they were not even as good as those San Francisco teams we beat to get to the Super Bowl.

It's a matter of where the league is at then and now. The league, IMO, was simply better then then now. To me, all the rest is BS. I believe that those early 90s teams are the best ever. I don't believe that any team could defeat them because I don't believe that any defense is good enough to stop that OL. Defensively, we more then held our own with one of the greatest offenses in the history of the game in San Fran. You can't tell me that we would be overmatched by any offense that has played in any Super Bowl, ever.

This is what I believe. When you break down all the teams, I just believe that those teams are better than anybody. Only the 85 Bears make me wonder and really, not even them because I believe that, while they had great players on defense, we knew how to beat that 46. That's the biggest advanatage that team had IMO and we understood it because of Ryan and the Eagles. Seriously, I just think they were the best an nobody will ever convince me differently.

 

[dargonking999]

Great posts ABQ.

You should put that out on the media outlets, maybe reason will find them somewhere.

 

[CATCH17]

Honestly there is people in the media that can convince themselves that the 90's 49ers were better than the Cowboys.

 

[links18]

Michael Irvin compares favorably to Randy Moss, although Moss is a bigger-play threat. Emmitt Smith obviously wins the matchup with Laurence Maroney, and Tom Brady and Troy Aikman (left) are pretty close, with each quarterback leading his team to three Super Bowl titles. I do think Brady gets the nod because he won his Super Bowls without a couple of Hall of Fame talents at receiver and running back.

What is this a comparison of rosters or what would happen if the teams met head to head? If its the later, well Michael Irvin wouldn't go against Randy Moss and Laurence Maroney wouldn't go against Emmitt. Why doesn't he compare the offense to the defense, etc to determine who wins the "matchup?"

 

[Arch Stanton]

If....but it was moot.

 

[cowboys2233]

Michael Irvin compares favorably to Randy Moss, although Moss is a bigger-play threat. Emmitt Smith obviously wins the matchup with Laurence Maroney, and Tom Brady and Troy Aikman (left) are pretty close, with each quarterback leading his team to three Super Bowl titles. I do think Brady gets the nod because he won his Super Bowls without a couple of Hall of Fame talents at receiver and running back.

What is this a comparison of rosters or what would happen if the teams met head to head? If its the later, well Michael Irvin wouldn't go against Randy Moss and Laurence Maroney wouldn't go against Emmitt. Why doesn't he compare the offense to the defense, etc to determine who wins the "matchup?"

Because he's ********? Because he is a poster-boy lover who likes making comparisons of similar positions, simply because they happen to be the biggest stars on the teams?

God love the Internet, but the fact that Fathead lovers like this doofus can actually have a voice on these types of subjects shows this medium's dark side.

 

[MONT17]

The pats couldn't even beat the giants besides that cowboy team wasn't even suppose to win that year. Aikman was 26 or 27 with jus 3 real seasons of starting. Oh this just in if the giants can hold the pats 2 14 points in the super bowl the 85 would pitch a no no v the pats

 

[TwentyOne]

No way a salary cup team can beat one pre salary cup. maybe the mediocre ones but not one of the top teams.

and to even consider the patriots as THE greatest team in super bowl history is just ridiculous.

OK to be a team like the patriots are - so dominating over such a long period of time even in the salary cup area would make them one of the greatest teams/franchises ever. But it's clear that they cheated their way to the top. Of course the discussion about their cheating was shelfed very quickly. But to me that's no sign that there was no cheating. To me that is a clear indication that the people who lead the Patriots have much more powers regarding the NFL then the not biased fan of the NFL would like them to have.

So to me to even consider the Patriots to be a legit contender as the greatest team the NFL has ever seen this is a slap in the face of every other fair competing NFL and/or American Football team there is.

 

[LeonDixson]

In 92, I believe the NFL was a better product. I believe this because at the time, you could have a team that went three deep at every position. You can't do that in this day and age. I have never really believed that the Pats were a dominating team offensively. Good, yes, but not great. I also think that it's stupid to compare last years team to our champoinship teams. If you want to compare the Pats 01, 03 or 04 teams, then that's fine but not the 07 team. They are not deserving. They may have gone 16-0 in the regular season but the line for 2nd best starts there at the door. You don't get to sit at the table unless it says championship after your name. 19-1, while very impressive, don't cut it in a discussion of champions.

This is what I would say about those teams.

2001
16-13 over Oakland in the Divisional Playoffs. The Brady Rule
24-17 over Pittsburgh in the Conference Championship.
20-17 over the Rams in the Super Bowl. AV won that game.

2003
17-14 over the Titans in the Divisional Playoffs.
24-14 over the Colts in the Conference Championship.
32-29 over Carolina in the Super Bowl. AV won that game again.

2004
20-3 over Indy. They dominated the Colts in the Divisional.
41-27 over Pittsburgh. They dominated the Steelers in the Conference.
24-21 over Philly. Anybody but Philly and they probably lose. Eagles are the consimate chock artist organization in professional sports. Any QB who can keep his lunch down probably beats them. Only TO showed up in that game. Even still, AV won it for them again.


1992
34-10 over Philly. We curshed them. Those were the Reggie Brown, Clyde Simmons, Jerome Brown teams. Divisional Game.
30-20 over San Fran. Probaby the 2nd best team in the league by a considerable margin. We beat them in SF convincingly. Conference Game.
52-17 over the Bills. HOF QB, RB and WR talent on that offense. Best Defense in the league IMO. We crushed them. Super Bowl.

1993
27-17 over GB. We owned possibly the greatest QB (statistically speaking) in the history of the game. Really was not close. Divisional Game.
38-21 over San Fran. Again, we dominated what was probably the 2nd best team in the league at the time. HOF QB, HOF WR, convincingly. Conference Championship.
30-13 over the Bills. Not as one sided but again, we dominated them. Was never really in doubt. Not even close. Super Bowl.

1995
30-11 over Philly. Again, we owned one of the truely great defenses in the history of the NFL. Our OL dominated them. Divisional Game.
38-17 over Packers. Broken record stuff but again, we simply dictated to Brett Favre and that Green Bay offense. Conference Game.
27-17 over Pittsburgh. Closest game we played in playoffs or Championship throughout our run. Having said that, it was still never really close or even in doubt. We never trailed in that game. Heck, two of the 4 quarters of that football game, we held the Steelers scoreless. It is only considered close because we were so dominant in all of our previous victories. It was never really close. Super Bowl.

Compare the two championship runs and you see that the Cowboys were truely dominant. Where as, the Pats, while great, needed Vini to win every one of there championships. Without that kicker, they probably never make this discussion.

The truth is the truth in that regard.

I have said this many times. I have seen great teams. I have seen teams that might even be better, in certain phases of the game, then our great teams of the early 90s. Having said that, I have never seen a unit more dominating then our OL of those years. They simply could impose there will on any opposing unit. I have never seen any defense that could stand against them. I consider the Philly Defense of that same period to be the best defensive line I've ever seen. They were owned. As great as Seymour and Wilfork might be, they are not even in the same league with The great Reggie White, Simmons or Brown.

The San Francisco Offense of that same period were light years better then any offense New England has ever fielded in the history of there organization. Brady is a great QB but it just doesn't compare. Young (HOF), Rice (perhaps the greatest WR of all time), Brett Jones (Probably future HOF TE), Ricky Watters, Tom Rathman, Jason Taylor? San Francisco was by far, a better team IMO, then New England. I give New England there due but IMO, they were not even as good as those San Francisco teams we beat to get to the Super Bowl.

It's a matter of where the league is at then and now. The league, IMO, was simply better then then now. To me, all the rest is BS. I believe that those early 90s teams are the best ever. I don't believe that any team could defeat them because I don't believe that any defense is good enough to stop that OL. Defensively, we more then held our own with one of the greatest offenses in the history of the game in San Fran. You can't tell me that we would be overmatched by any offense that has played in any Super Bowl, ever.

This is what I believe. When you break down all the teams, I just believe that those teams are better than anybody. Only the 85 Bears make me wonder and really, not even them because I believe that, while they had great players on defense, we knew how to beat that 46. That's the biggest advanatage that team had IMO and we understood it because of Ryan and the Eagles. Seriously, I just think they were the best an nobody will ever convince me differently.

That should be Brent Jones and John Taylor, I think. No matter, I agree with your post 100%.

Edit: I would add that NE won every one of their SB's by only 3 points and that was with help from the referees. This doesn't even take into account their cheating.

I'm so glad the Giants beat them in the SB. Other wise we would have seen hundreds of articles after the game proclaiming them the best team in history.

 

[NoLuv4Jerry]

The Patriots have won all 3 of their Super Bowls by A COMBINED 9 points.....against teams that had little to none Super Bowl pedigree (Rams, Carolina, Eagles)...with the Eagles and Carolina being in the Super Bowl for the FIRST TIME


Then there was the fumble that was not called a fumble against the Raiders makes there Super Bowl run a question to me.


The Cowboys had to go through war to even get to the Super Bowls...remember the NFC East won back to back to back Super Bowls from 90 - 92. So we had to beat teams with Super Bowl pedigree to even get out of our division. Then the Cowboys had to defeat teams with Super Bowl pedigree (49ers, Packers) to get to the Super Bowl. And all of these teams have HOFers. Are there any HOFers on the Panthers or Eagles?

Then the Cowboys actually beat teams WITH Super Bowl pedigree (Bills, Steelers)...and our smallest margin of victory (10 point win over Steelers)...is larger than ALL THREE PATS MARGIN OF SUPER BOWL VICTORIES COMBINED

And let's not forget what Dallas used to do to 3-4 defenses....being a major catalyst for the demise of the 3-4.

And lastly there is spygate....if you know what someone is going to do, then shouldn't you be able to win by more than 3 points?

Did I mention how bad the AFC East is/was during there run?

Did I mention we changes head coaches during our run?

Did I mention we lost offensive and defensive coordinators during our run? How many Super Bowls have the Pats won without Weiss and Crenell?

 

[LittleBoyBlue]

The Patriots have won all 3 of their Super Bowls by A COMBINED 9 points.....against teams that had little to none Super Bowl pedigree (Rams, Carolina, Eagles)...with the Eagles and Carolina being in the Super Bowl for the FIRST TIME

The Eagles have a legitimate BEEF with their SB vs the Pats. McNabb throws 3 INT's - Pats knew where to go.

THAT right there minimizes the "greatness" of the Pats Tarnished Dynasty.

With the Cowboys it was no suprise - you knew what was coming - you couldnt stop them.

 

[RCowboyFan]

Wow, who dug up this fossil of a thread?

I guess everyone noticed that this was written last November, before the Pats failed in the Super Bowl. No way a team that doesn't even win it all can be compared to an all-time great team like the 92 Cowboys.

Was wondering the same thing. If Patriots had won the SB handily, then you have a debate there. If not its totally useless discussion. SB more than proved, Patroits OL can't even hold Cowboys OL Jockstrap of those SB era.

NE OL is way ovverated. Brady effectiveness of avoiding sacks is say is also way Underrated at the same time. Brady makes that Line look far better than it is, by the way he avoids sacks, and his normally deep drops, which mostly is effective in avoiding sacks, especially quick ones.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

That should be Brent Jones and John Taylor, I think. No matter, I agree with your post 100%.

Edit: I would add that NE won every one of their SB's by only 3 points and that was with help from the referees. This doesn't even take into account their cheating.

I'm so glad the Giants beat them in the SB. Other wise we would have seen hundreds of articles after the game proclaiming them the best team in history.

Thank you for pointing out those errors. I've gone back and corrected them accordingly.

 

[jobberone]

Don't want to sound like a homer but I agree wholeheartedly with ABQCowboy. We dominated when one loss and you're out and beat two very good Bill teams for championships.

No way to really tell who beats who but those 92-95 teams were absolutely great.


BTW, the Eagles have been to two SBs not one.

 

[Nexx]

by how many points total did the patsies win their superbowls against teams in the salary capped watered down era with all their "superstars" that mosely points are so good?

 

[Thomas82]

The pats couldn't even beat the giants besides that cowboy team wasn't even suppose to win that year. Aikman was 26 or 27 with jus 3 real seasons of starting. Oh this just in if the giants can hold the pats 2 14 points in the super bowl the 85 would pitch a no no v the pats

Yeah, Troy was 26 then. As a matter of fact, the Cowboys were the youngest team in the NFL in 1992 with an average age of 26.

 

[Thomas82]

The Patriots have won all 3 of their Super Bowls by A COMBINED 9 points.....against teams that had little to none Super Bowl pedigree (Rams, Carolina, Eagles)...with the Eagles and Carolina being in the Super Bowl for the FIRST TIME


Then there was the fumble that was not called a fumble against the Raiders makes there Super Bowl run a question to me.


The Cowboys had to go through war to even get to the Super Bowls...remember the NFC East won back to back to back Super Bowls from 90 - 92. So we had to beat teams with Super Bowl pedigree to even get out of our division. Then the Cowboys had to defeat teams with Super Bowl pedigree (49ers, Packers) to get to the Super Bowl. And all of these teams have HOFers. Are there any HOFers on the Panthers or Eagles?

Then the Cowboys actually beat teams WITH Super Bowl pedigree (Bills, Steelers)...and our smallest margin of victory (10 point win over Steelers)...is larger than ALL THREE PATS MARGIN OF SUPER BOWL VICTORIES COMBINED

And let's not forget what Dallas used to do to 3-4 defenses....being a major catalyst for the demise of the 3-4.

And lastly there is spygate....if you know what someone is going to do, then shouldn't you be able to win by more than 3 points?

Did I mention how bad the AFC East is/was during there run?

Did I mention we changes head coaches during our run?

Did I mention we lost offensive and defensive coordinators during our run? How many Super Bowls have the Pats won without Weiss and Crenell?

 

[Dimuha]

The '93 Cowboys were the most talented team ever and the best Cowboy team of that era. Remember, we weren't even favourites to win the NFC in '92, in '93 we came in as favourites and won it all.

 

[Oh_Canada]

This is a joke right?

The Boys of '92 would have handed the Patriots there lunch AND dinner. I just can't imagine the Patriots stopping Emmitt and that o-line all game, they would be lucky to see the ball for 20 minutes.

 

[Yakuza Rich]

First off, the Pats are cheating scumbags...thus all of their achievements come into question.

Secondly, the economics of the game alone suggest that just about any SB team before the salary cap was likely better than any SB team after the salary cap.

Personally, I think the '89 Niners would obliterate the Pats so bad that it would be embarrassing.





YAKUZA